The opinion of the court was delivered by: Roanne L. Mann, United States Magistrate Judge:
The Court is in receipt of various filings from the parties in connection with this Court's Minute Entry of July 2, 2012, directing defendant "to respond to plaintiff's discovery demand by disclosing to plaintiff, by 7/23/12, the names of all employees worki[n]g out of the RTS unit in 2006, as well as their next assignment after the RTS unit." Minute Entry (July 2, 2012) ("7/2/12 Order"), Electronic Case Filing Docket Entry ("DE") #46. In response to the 7/2/12 Order, defendant filed and served a Declaration of David H. Rudy ("Rudy Declaration"), detailing how limited duty job assignments in Brooklyn were handled by the Postal Service from 2003 to 2006, and identifying three limited duty employees who, like plaintiff, were working out of the RTS Unit in 2006, and the sites to which they were reassigned later that year. See generally Rudy Declaration, DE #47-1.*fn1
Dissatisfied with this information, plaintiff filed a letter with the Court on July 30, 2012, complaining that [d]efendant did not produce any of the documents as per the Court's Order dated July 2, 2012. We did not receive the list of employees working in the RTS Unit in 2006, as well as where the same employees were placed as their next assignment. We received only a Declaration of David Rudy along with several exhibits.
Memorandum in Opposition (July 30, 2012) at 1, DE #48 (emphasis added). In particular, plaintiff insists that, contrary to Mr. Rudy's sworn assertion, "the Postal Service clearly must maintain a complete list of employees regardless of their status." Id. at 2. And, in an unauthorized reply filed yesterday, plaintiff disputes defendant's contention*fn2 that the Rudy Declaration contains the information sought by her; plaintiff reiterates that the Rudy Declaration does not include "supporting documentation regarding identified employees of the RTS unit." Memorandum in Opposition (Aug. 6, 2012) ("Pl. 8/6/12 Letter") at 1, DE #51.
Plaintiff's request for a compulsion order is denied. Plaintiff misconstrues the scope of the Court's 7/2/12 Order, which directed defendant to produce information, not documents; specifically, defendant was ordered to disclose the "names" of employees working out of the RTS Unit in 2006, as well as their subsequent work assignments. See 7/2/12 Order. Plaintiff apparently made no formal demand for the documentation that she now claims she is entitled to. See Letter in Opposition to Plaintiff's June 11, 2012 Motion to Compel (June 13, 2012) at 2, DE #34 (noting that plaintiff demanded "the names of all individuals working in the RTS Unit in the Brooklyn GMF facility during the period of August 2004 to present"). Having learned her co-worker's subsequent assignments, plaintiff now has more information than she demanded in her formal discovery requests.
In sum, the Court's 7/2/12 Order required the production of
information; defendant has provided it; and plaintiff failed to object
to the limited scope of the 7/2/12 Order. Although plaintiff now takes
issue with the facts recounted in the Rudy Declaration,*fn3
and complains that defendant has changed its position
throughout this litigation, she has not identified any violation of
this Court's discovery order. Accordingly, the relief requested in
plaintiff's July 30th letter is denied.
ROANNE L. MANN UNITED STATES ...